You don't have to read much of the article. The main point is that prior presidents did not declare national emergencies for projects Congress won't fund. There is no precedent for that, and it's a flagrant constitutional violation.
As anyone with half a brain can see.
That's a different point than saying I posted bullshit. I posted the actual evidence of the national emergencies. The reader can decide
You don't have to read much of the article. The main point is that prior presidents did not declare national emergencies for projects Congress won't fund. There is no precedent for that, and it's a flagrant constitutional violation.
As anyone with half a brain can see.
That's a different point than saying I posted bullshit. I posted the actual evidence of the national emergencies. The reader can decide
You're hairsplitting. By posting that list, you implied "everybody is doing it" and national emergencies are the norm.
You don't have to read much of the article. The main point is that prior presidents did not declare national emergencies for projects Congress won't fund. There is no precedent for that, and it's a flagrant constitutional violation.
As anyone with half a brain can see.
Since 2001 POTUS have used NE to appropriate funds 18 times.
You don't have to read much of the article. The main point is that prior presidents did not declare national emergencies for projects Congress won't fund. There is no precedent for that, and it's a flagrant constitutional violation.
As anyone with half a brain can see.
That's a different point than saying I posted bullshit. I posted the actual evidence of the national emergencies. The reader can decide
Yes and which one of those in equivalent or setting precedent to what Trump is doing now?
You don't have to read much of the article. The main point is that prior presidents did not declare national emergencies for projects Congress won't fund. There is no precedent for that, and it's a flagrant constitutional violation.
As anyone with half a brain can see.
That's a different point than saying I posted bullshit. I posted the actual evidence of the national emergencies. The reader can decide
You're hairsplitting. By posting that list, you implied "everybody is doing it" and national emergencies are the norm.
I didn't imply anything. You seem upset. Were you this upset about the other 31?
You don't have to read much of the article. The main point is that prior presidents did not declare national emergencies for projects Congress won't fund. There is no precedent for that, and it's a flagrant constitutional violation.
As anyone with half a brain can see.
That's a different point than saying I posted bullshit. I posted the actual evidence of the national emergencies. The reader can decide
Yes and which one of those in equivalent or setting precedent to what Trump is doing now?
And what was the precedent for the other 31?
Who cares? You don't want a wall. I do. Cry some more
We’ve never had a Government Coup taking down an elected President before now, either.
IDRGAF about the wall. the $ is irrelevant. the rhetoric for it is a bit unfortunate and overblown, but if it makes people happy, fucking build it so we? can move on.
but this is a quick dodge. there's no fucking coup; that's about as dramatic as people threatening to leave the country if Trump's election stood up. and, it's not relevant to the issue being discussed. I thought we? didn't like but but but. that's a but but but of the first order.
We’ve never had a Government Coup taking down an elected President before now, either.
IDRGAF about the wall. the $ is irrelevant. the rhetoric for it is a bit unfortunate and overblown, but if it makes people happy, fucking build it so we? can move on.
but this is a quick dodge. there's no fucking coup; that's about as dramatic as people threatening to leave the country if Trump's election stood up. and, it's not relevant to the issue being discussed. I thought we? didn't like but but but. that's a but but but of the first order.
We’ve never had a Government Coup taking down an elected President before now, either.
IDRGAF about the wall. the $ is irrelevant. the rhetoric for it is a bit unfortunate and overblown, but if it makes people happy, fucking build it so we? can move on.
but this is a quick dodge. there's no fucking coup; that's about as dramatic as people threatening to leave the country if Trump's election stood up. and, it's not relevant to the issue being discussed. I thought we? didn't like but but but. that's a but but but of the first order.
it may be a dodge but McCabe admitted the coup to sell a book
Trust me if it was anyone other than Trump the left and "moderates" like you would be up in arms
We’ve never had a Government Coup taking down an elected President before now, either.
Wut?
Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
An open border certainly qualifies to people that love the country
So not you H
We’ve got an open border? Tell us another one.
CONCORD, N.H. -- Democratic presidential contender Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says she could possibly support a call by former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas to tear down parts of the existing U.S.-Mexico border wall.
“I’d have to ask folks in that part of the country to see whether the fencing that exists today is helpful or unhelpful,” the senator from New York told Fox News on Friday, as she was campaigning in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary state of New Hampshire.
“I could look at it and see which part he means and why, and if it makes sense, I could support it,” Gillibrand added.
O'ROURKE CALLS FOR TEARING DOWN WALL
O’Rourke, who’s seriously mulling a White House bid of his own, said Thursday in an interview with NBC News that he’d “absolutely … take the wall down," referring to the barrier by El Paso, Texas.
O’Rourke, who came close to upsetting GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in last November’s Senate election in Texas, argued that the existing 600 miles of wall and fencing along the 2,000-mile border have “not in any demonstrable way made us safer.”
Comments
Your President Nixon
Who cares? You don't want a wall. I do. Cry some more
but this is a quick dodge. there's no fucking coup; that's about as dramatic as people threatening to leave the country if Trump's election stood up. and, it's not relevant to the issue being discussed. I thought we? didn't like but but but. that's a but but but of the first order.
Trust me if it was anyone other than Trump the left and "moderates" like you would be up in arms
Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Got it!
“I’d have to ask folks in that part of the country to see whether the fencing that exists today is helpful or unhelpful,” the senator from New York told Fox News on Friday, as she was campaigning in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary state of New Hampshire.
“I could look at it and see which part he means and why, and if it makes sense, I could support it,” Gillibrand added.
O'ROURKE CALLS FOR TEARING DOWN WALL
O’Rourke, who’s seriously mulling a White House bid of his own, said Thursday in an interview with NBC News that he’d “absolutely … take the wall down," referring to the barrier by El Paso, Texas.
O’Rourke, who came close to upsetting GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in last November’s Senate election in Texas, argued that the existing 600 miles of wall and fencing along the 2,000-mile border have “not in any demonstrable way made us safer.”